The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-05-05
JUDGE TERRELL.
He Defines His Position on the
Question of Prohibition.


My Dear Sir-I regret to inform you
that my business engagements VIII not
permit me to meet at Dallas, in May next,
with those who oppose what is termed
prohibition. Even were it otherwise,
cannot believe that my presence there
would be either necessary or useful. IN
willing, however, to evade that measure
of responsibility which attaches to every
private citizen of Texas, l now comply
with your request to give my opinion re-
garding the proposed change of the state
constitution.
The clause now found in the state con-
stitution, which permits the people OF
any county, city or town, who desire to
stop the sale of liquor in their midst, to
vote it away from them, was compro-
mise of the conflicting views re-
garding this liquor question
among those who made that constitution.
Time and observation have convinced
me that it was wise compromise, and
though l have never been able to defend
it on principle, have acquiesced in it for
the benefit of communities who desired
and were already prepared, to enforce 10
cal option among themselves. But, when
it is proposed to change all this, by sub
stituting state prohibition for local OPP
tion, and permitting prohibition majorities
in one portion of the state, to dictate to
anti prohibition majorities in other sec
tions of the state, 1 can see nothing in
the future but disrespect and successful
defiance of law.
Local option is beyond the domains of
party politics now, because it was born of
compromise, and is sanctioned by our
state constitution, which every true demo-
crat must respect. Hence, the last demo-
cratic state convention could and did
very properly declare: "We do not be-
lieve that the views of any citizen upon
the question of local option should inter
fere with his standing in the democratic
party" This is all that was ever declared
by that convention.
But no democratic party in Texas has
ever said that absolute state prohi-
bition should rot be made
party issue. cannot now, and
have never subscribed to the doctrine
that state prohibition should be treated as
moral question only, for to me it is far
reaching as a precedent, and of fearful
political significance. If, indeed, it should
be regarded and voted on by the people
as moral question only, then ministers
of the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures
should be alone consulted.
Political conventions cannot make prin-
ciples for men. even should they attempt
il; their true province is to announce doc
trines already held in common by those
who compose them. Such a body can
conventionize a man out of his preference
as between rival candidates Of the same
political faith, but never out of his princi-
Piles. Conventions are necessary evils at
best, but whenever they undertake to re-
solve men by platforms out of their
convictions on great public ques-
tions, they become potent engines
for evil in the hands of designing leaders,
and if kindly submitted to would result
in prostituting representative govern
ment and turning it over to convention
rings. The citizen who changes his views
of the powers and duties of his state, as
often as his party platform is changed,
is unfit for membership in any party,
because he has no convictions of his
own, and he becomes dangerous factor
in representative government. The
Jealous friends of total abstinence have
chosen to break loose from the compro-
mise in the constitution which per-
mitted local option, and which with
drew the liquor question from the do
main of party politics, and to precipi-
tate the issue of state prohibition upon
the people. They will now seek in vain
to evade the political significance of the
issue thus presented.
1t is not my purpose to discuss in
this letter at length, either the policy or
morality of changing the constitution so
as to prohibit every man in Texas from
making bottle of wine, even
for himself 1 simply say that
am opposed to such change.
l care not what northern or western states
or courts have voted or decided on such a
question. The idea that all the people of
Texas shall abstain from pressing the
juice of the grape, which the Creator has
given US, and which, when once pressed,
His laws will manufacture into wine with
out our help, and this because one man in
a hundred will abuse His bounty and get
drunk, is not consistent with my views of
democratic government or of rational
reform.
Since 1876, when our constitution went
into effect, | have steadfastly refused all
invitations to address the people outside
of my own county about local option
elections, for believed, and still believe,
that the constitutional compromise of this
vexed question should be lived up to in
good faith. Indeed, | never made but one
speech on prohibition even, and that was
years ago, in the state senate, against Just
such change of the constitution as is
now submitted.
If the contest for prohibition shall be
waged by ministers of religion, reinforced
by northern missionaries, lecturing women
and those who seek for themselves com
pulsOry reformation by the state, then, so
far as | am concerned, this crusade against
what believe to be a reserved right of
man may spend its force.
But if any citizen of Texas and who is
not minister of the gospel, comes to my
town to persuade people that prohibition
in the way now attempted, is either dem
ocratic or consistent with rational views of
free government, and no one else will an
swer him, will not surrender my right to
dos Respectfully, A. W. TERRELL.
A Bloody ARRAY
is often the result of "bad blood" in a
family or community, but nowhere is bad
blood more destructive of happiness and
health than in the human system. When
the life currant iS fOul and sluUUiSh with